DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
Applicant's election without traverse of group (A1) and (B2) in the reply filed on 7/7/2025 is acknowledged.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/04/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application 17/545,110 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of group (A1) and (B2) in the reply filed on 7/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
With respect to the instant claim 15, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to applicant's elected species in combination with the limitations of one of claim 15 in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of claim 15 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of claim 15 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to Applicant’s elected species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claim 15 has not be determined with respect to species beyond Applicant's elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond Applicant's elected species.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 10 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 14, and 17-20 have been amended.
The amendments of claim 14 has overcome the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 9, 11, 14, and 17-20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2018/0006247 A1, hereafter Zeng) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697, hereafter Acharya) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections has been withdrawn.
The Terminal Disclaimer approved on 11/04/2025 obviates the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17-20 set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 79-82 of the reply filed 11/04/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng/Acharya set forth in the Office Action of 08/06/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, Applicant claims duplicated formula structures of the ligands LAi’-47 and LAi’-48. It is suggested to delete one of the duplicates.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims the ligand LA which can be LAi’-m or LAi-m’, wherein m is an integer from 1 to 85 and m’ is an integer 86 to 116.
However, for some m and m’, the corresponding structural formulas have been deleted. For example, there is no structural formula wherein m is 6, 7, and 8. It is unclear whether Applicant claims the structural formulas wherein m is selected from an integer from 1 to 85 and m’ is selected from an integer 86 to 116, or whether Applicant claims the undeleted structural formulas.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that Applicant claims the undeleted ligands.
Additionally, there are two structural formulas corresponding to LAi’-45 and LAi’-46 (page 13 last two rows). It is unclear which structure is claimed as LAi’-45 and which structure is claimed as LAi’-46.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that Applicant claims both structures as LAi’-45 and LAi’-46.
Regarding claims 11-14, claims 11-14 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 9.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “The compound of claim 1, wherein the ligand LA is selected …” and claims specific structural formulas of the ligands LA. However, some of the ligand is not encompassed by the ligand LA of claim 1 because some of the ligands do not comprise deuterium. For example, ligand LA1’-1 having structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
97
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein RE is R1
PNG
media_image2.png
94
76
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and G is G1
PNG
media_image3.png
119
70
media_image3.png
Greyscale
does not comprise any deuterium atom. The ligand LA in the compound of claim 1 is required to comprise at least one deuterium atom. Currently claim 9 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claims 11-14, claims 11-14 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-8, 17, and 19, Li discloses a compound represented by one of Formulas I to X and used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]-[0015]). Li exemplifies a compound ([0160], the fourth compound on page 41, hereafter Compound p95-1).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the Compound p95-1, the substituent corresponding to Rb of Formula VII is not deuterium; however, Li does teach that the substituent Rb can be deuterium ([0014]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir compound comprising phenyl pyridine ligand, wherein the phenyl ring of the ligand is substituted by deuterium ([0037]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p95-1 by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the position corresponding to Rb with deuterium, as taught by Li and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents from H to D at the position Rb in Formula VII of Li would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
403
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-8 and 19.
Li in view of Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Li as modified by Kim; however, Li does teach that the compound of Li can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0006]).
Li teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer including an emitter and a host, and a cathode ([0165]-[0166]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Li as modified by Kim by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device, as taught by Li.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Li as modified by Kim as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 18, the Compound of Li as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound does not have a 5-membered ring at the position corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li; however, Li does teach that the ring L1 can be a pyrazole ring ([0116]). Li exemplifies a compound wherein the ring corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li is pyrazole ([0160], see examples including at least the 4th compound on page 41).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Li as modified by Kim by substituting the pyridine ring at the position corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li with pyrazole, as taught by Li and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of pyridine with pyrazole at the position corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim (2).
PNG
media_image6.png
442
554
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 and 17-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Li as modified by Kim as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode.
Li in view of Kim does not disclose a specific consumer produce comprising the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim; however, Li does teach that the invention of Li can be used be for a consumer product (display or lighting devices in [0080]-[0081]).
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Li and Pang
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 1-8, 17, and 19-20, Li discloses a compound represented by one of Formulas I to X and used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]-[0015]). Li exemplifies a compound ([0160], the fourth compound on page 41, hereafter Compound p95-1).
PNG
media_image7.png
394
731
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In the Compound p95-1, the substituent at position 3 of the pyridine ring of the ligand pointed by an arrow in the figure above (i.e. the substituent at the position corresponding to Ra of Formula VII) is not deuterium; however, Li does teach that the substituent Ra can be deuterium ([0014]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Zhang discloses an Ir complex used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002]). The complex of Zhang comprises a phenyl pyridine ligand wherein the pyridine ring is substituted by deuterium at position 3 ([0023]).
Zhang teaches that the 3-deuterium substituted complex provides the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with prolong device lifetime, lower driving voltage, and higher power efficiency ([0017], [0170], [0172]; see comparative data between Embodiment 1 and Comparative Example 1 in Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p95-1 by substituting the hydrogen atom at position 3 of the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand with deuterium, as taught by Li, Kim, and Zhang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim, and to provide the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with prolong device lifetime, lower driving voltage, and higher power efficiency based on the teaching of Zhang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents from H to D at the position Ra in Formula VII of Li would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image8.png
346
667
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-8 and 19.
Li in view of Kim and Zhang does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang; however, Li does teach that the compound of Li can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0006]).
Li teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer including an emitter and a host, and a cathode ([0165]-[0166]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device, as taught by Li.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Li in view of Kim and Zhang does not disclose a specific consumer produce comprising the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang; however, Li does teach that the invention of Li can be used be for a consumer product (display or lighting devices in [0080]-[0081]).
Zhang teaches an organic light emitting device can be incorporated in a television ([0042]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a television, as taught by Li and Zhang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a consumer product such as a television comprising an OLED device, based on the teaching of Zhang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (television) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claims 9 and 11-14, the Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The ligand LA of the Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang has similar structure as the ligand LA33-86 which has structure of
PNG
media_image9.png
103
95
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, wherein RE is R9
PNG
media_image10.png
91
90
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and G is G1
PNG
media_image11.png
118
68
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. The only difference is that the dibenzoselenophene group is required to be benzoselenophene; however, Li does teach that the fluorescent luminophore group of F1 in the Formula VII can be a benzoselenophene group represented by
PNG
media_image12.png
87
137
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1I and R2I can be each hydrogen ([0122]-[0126]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang by substituting the dibenzoselenophene group with a benzoselenophene group, as taught by Li.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the fluorescent luminophore groups in the compound of Li would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding the bonding position in the selenophene ring, there are finite number of substitutable positions. The selection of the bonding position next to the selenium atom in the selenophene ring would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Additionally, the compound having bond next to the selenium atom is a position isomer of compound having bond at any other available ring carbon of the benzoselenophene group.
PNG
media_image13.png
273
641
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim and Zhang (2) which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound Ir(LA33-86)3.
Claims 1-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constable et al. (“Solution, structural and photophysical aspects of substituent effects in the N^N ligand in [Ir(C^N)2(N^N)]+ complexes” Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 8086-8013, hereafter Constable).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 19, Constable discloses Compound 4 (Schemes 1 and 3) used as the emitter of a light emitting device (“light emitting electrochemical cell” in Abstract).
PNG
media_image14.png
356
635
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Compound 4 of Constable does not have deuterium substituent.
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies a compound wherein the hydrogen atoms substituted to the first aromatic ring (i.e. the pyridine ring) of the ligand are substituted with deuterium ([0045]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 4 of Constable by substituting the hydrogen atoms substituted to the first aromatic rings (i.e. the pyridine ring) coordinating to the Ir atom with deuterium, as taught by Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image15.png
273
702
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Constable as modified by Kim.
Claims 1-7, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishige et al. (JP 2013/187211 A, a machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Ishige) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7, 17-18, and 20, Ishige discloses a compound used for an organic light emitting device, wherein the compound comprising at least one ligand represented by formula (A) and at least two of three bidentate ligands linked by a covalent bond via a linking group ([0013]). Ishige exemplifies Compound 1-1-3 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image16.png
411
835
media_image16.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 1-1-3, the phenyl ring directly coordinating the Ir metal is substituted by hydrogen atoms.
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provide in an Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir compound comprising phenyl pyridine ligand, wherein the phenyl ring of the ligand is substituted by deuterium ([0037]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-1-3 by substituting the hydrogen atoms substituted to the phenyl ring directly coordinating to the Ir atom with deuterium, as taught by Ishige and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Compound of Ishige as modified by Kim which has identical structure as the Compound 1-1-3 of Ishige except the hydrogen atoms substituted to the phenyl ring of the phenyl imidazole ligand are substituted by deuterium, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7 and 18.
Ishige in view of Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Ishige as modified by Kim; however, Ishige does teach that the compound of Ishige can be used for an organic light emitting device ([0013]).
Ishige teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer including an emitter and a host, and a cathode ([0385]-[0390]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Ishige as modified by Kim by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device, as taught by Ishige.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Ishige as modified by Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer containing Compound of Ishige as modified by Kim, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Ishige in view of Kim does not disclose a specific consumer produce comprising the Organic light emitting device of Ishige as modified by Kim; however, Ishige does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a display device ([0019]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Ishige as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Ishige.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of OLED in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Ishige as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786